XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Guarantees Indemnifications In connection with acquisitions and divestitures as of March 31, 2019, the company has indemnified respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the transactions. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally indefinite. In addition, the company indemnifies its duly elected or appointed directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, against liabilities incurred as a result of their activities for the company, such as adverse judgments relating to litigation matters. If the indemnified party were to incur a liability or have a liability increase as a result of a successful claim, pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, the company would be required to reimburse the indemnified party. The maximum amount of potential future payments is generally unlimited. Obligations for Equity Affiliates & Others The company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to equity affiliates, and customers. At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the company had directly guaranteed $239 million and $259 million, respectively, of such obligations. These amounts represent the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments that the company could be required to make under the guarantees. The company would be required to perform on these guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed party. The company assesses the payment/performance risk by assigning default rates based on the duration of the guarantees. These default rates are assigned based on the external credit rating of the counterparty or through internal credit analysis and historical default history for counterparties that do not have published credit ratings. For counterparties without an external rating or available credit history, a cumulative average default rate is used. In certain cases, the company has recourse to assets held as collateral, as well as personal guarantees from customers. Assuming liquidation, these assets are estimated to cover approximately 7 percent of the $73 million of guaranteed obligations of customers. Set forth below are the company's guaranteed obligations at March 31, 2019. The following table provides a summary of the final expiration year and maximum future payments for each type of guarantee:
Guarantees at March 31, 2019 | Final Expiration Year | Maximum Future Payments
(In millions)
Obligations for customers 1: |  |
Bank borrowings | 2022 | $ | 73 |
Obligations for non-consolidated affiliates 2: |  |  |
Bank borrowings | 2019 | 166 |
Total guarantees |  | $ | 239 |
1. | Existing guarantees for select customers, as part of contractual agreements. The terms of the guarantees are equivalent to the terms of the customer loans that are primarily made to finance customer invoices. Of the total maximum future payments, $72 million had terms less than a year.
2. | Existing guarantees for non-consolidated affiliates' liquidity needs in normal operations.
Litigation The company is subject to various legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of its current and former business operations, including product liability, intellectual property, commercial, environmental and antitrust lawsuits. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings. Although considerable uncertainty exists, management does not anticipate that the ultimate disposition of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations, consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, the ultimate liabilities could be material to results of operations in the period recognized. PFOA Liabilities Historical DuPont is a party to legal proceedings relating to the use of PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) by its former Performance Chemicals segment, which separated from Historical DuPont in July 2015 through the spin-off of all the issued and outstanding stock of Chemours. While it is reasonably possible that the company could incur liabilities related to PFOA, any such liabilities are not expected to be material. As discussed in Note 3 and below, the company is indemnified by Chemours under the Chemours Separation Agreement, as amended. The company has recorded a liability of $22 million and an indemnification asset of $22 million at March 31, 2019, primarily related to testing drinking water in and around certain historic company sites and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the national health advisory level established from time to time by the EPA. Leach Settlement and MDL Settlement Historical DuPont has residual liabilities under its 2004 settlement of a West Virginia state court class action, Leach v. DuPont, which alleged that PFOA from Historical DuPont’s former Washington Works facility had contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health of area residents. The settlement class has about 80,000 members. In addition to relief that was provided to class members years ago, the settlement requires Historical DuPont to continue providing PFOA water treatment to six area water districts and private well users and to fund, through an escrow account, up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members. As of March 31, 2019, approximately $2 million had been disbursed from the account since its establishment in 2012 and the remaining balance is approximately $1 million. The Leach settlement permits class members to pursue personal injury claims for six health conditions (and no others) that an expert panel appointed under the settlement reported in 2012 had a “probable link” (as defined in the settlement) with PFOA: pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. After the expert panel reported its findings, approximately 3,550 personal injury lawsuits were filed in federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“MDL”). The MDL was settled in early 2017 for $670.7 million in cash, with Chemours and Historical DuPont (without indemnification from Chemours) each paying half. Post-MDL Settlement PFOA Personal Injury Claims The MDL settlement did not resolve claims of plaintiffs who did not have claims in the MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. At March 31, 2019, approximately 57 lawsuits were pending alleging personal injury, including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis, from exposure to PFOA through air or water, only 3 of which are not part of the MDL or were not otherwise filed on behalf of Leach class members. Other PFOA Actions Historical DuPont is a party to other PFOA lawsuits that do not involve claims for personal injury. Chemours, pursuant to the Chemours Separation Agreement, is defending and indemnifying, with reservation, the company in these lawsuits. New York. Historical DuPont is a defendant in about 52 lawsuits, including a putative class action, brought by persons who live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York. These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring and property damage based on alleged PFOA releases from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls and allege that Historical DuPont and 3M supplied some of the materials used at these facilities. Historical DuPont is also one of more than ten defendants in a lawsuit brought by the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") contamination of the town’s well water. New Jersey. At December 31, 2018, two lawsuits were pending, one brought by a local water utility and the second a putative class action, against Historical DuPont alleging that PFOA from Historical DuPont’s former Chambers Works facility contaminated drinking water sources. The putative class action was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs. In late March of 2019, the New Jersey State Attorney General (the “NJAG”) filed four lawsuits against the company, Chemours, 3M and others alleging that former Historical DuPont operations at the Chambers Works, Pompton Lakes Works, Parlin and Repauno sites in New Jersey, caused damage to the State’s natural resources. Two of these lawsuits (those involving the Chambers Works and Parlin sites) allege contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). The lawsuit related to Parlin names an additional DowDuPont subsidiary. The Ridgewood Water District in New Jersey filed suit in the first quarter 2019 against Historical DuPont alleging losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of polyfluorinated surfactants (“PFS”), including PFOA, in water supplies. Alabama. Historical DuPont is one of more than thirty defendants in one lawsuit by a local water utility alleging contamination from perfluorinated chemicals and compounds (“PFCs”), including PFOA, used by co-defendant carpet manufacturers to make their products more stain and grease resistant. Ohio. Historical DuPont is a defendant in three lawsuits: an action by the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, a putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of anyone who has detectable levels of perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA, in their blood, and an action by the City of Dayton claiming losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of PFAS, including PFOA, in water supplies. Other. Dozens of cases have been filed against 3M and other defendants primarily alleging property damage from contamination in connection with the use of firefighting foams that contain PFOS. At March 31, 2019, Historical DuPont was named in 4 of these cases. Historical DuPont did not make firefighting foam and has never made or supplied PFOS or products that contained PFOS. Chemours Separation Agreement Amendment As discussed in Note 3, concurrent with the MDL Settlement, Historical DuPont and Chemours amended the Chemours Separation Agreement to provide for a limited sharing of potential future PFOA liabilities for a five-year period that began on July 6, 2017. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay the first $25 million of future PFOA liabilities and, if that amount is exceeded, Historical DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next $25 million, with Chemours annually bearing any excess liabilities above that amount. At the end of the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Chemours Separation Agreement will continue unchanged. As part of this amendment, Chemours also agreed that it would not contest its liability for PFOA liabilities on the basis of certain ostensible defenses it had previously raised, including defenses relating to punitive damages, and would waive any such defenses with respect to PFOA liabilities. Chemours has, however, retained defenses as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the Chemours Separation Agreement. There have been no charges incurred by Historical DuPont under this arrangement through March 31, 2019. Fayetteville Works Facility, North Carolina Prior to the separation of Chemours, the company introduced GenX as a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA at the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina. The facility is now owned and operated by Chemours, which continues to manufacture and use GenX. In 2017, the facility became and continues to be the subject of inquiries and government investigations relating to the alleged discharge of GenX and certain similar compounds into the air and Cape Fear River. In August 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina served the company with a grand jury subpoena for testimony and documents related to these discharges. Historical DuPont was served with additional subpoenas relating to the same issue and in the second quarter 2018, received a subpoena expanding the scope to any PFCs discharged from the Fayetteville Works facility into the Cape Fear River. It is possible that these ongoing inquiries and investigations, including the grand jury subpoena, could result in penalties or sanctions, or that additional litigation will be instituted against Chemours, the company, or both. At March 31, 2019, several actions are pending in federal court against Chemours and the company. One of these actions is a consolidated putative class action that asserts claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In addition, an action is pending in North Carolina state court on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own wells and property near the Fayetteville Works facility. The plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the site. While it is reasonably possible that the company could incur liabilities related to the actions described above, any such liabilities are not expected to be material. The company has an indemnification claim against Chemours with respect to current and future inquiries and claims, including lawsuits, related to the foregoing. At March 31, 2019, Chemours, with reservations, is defending and indemnifying the company in the pending civil actions. Environmental Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At March 31, 2019, the company had accrued obligations of $384 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $54 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. These obligations are included in accrued and other current liabilities and other noncurrent obligations in the interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to $790 million above the amount accrued at March 31, 2019. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. Pursuant to the Chemours Separation Agreement, the company is indemnified by Chemours for certain environmental matters, included in the liability of $384 million, that have an estimated liability of $185 million as of March 31, 2019, and a potential exposure that ranges up to approximately $355 million above the amount accrued. As such, the company has recorded an indemnification asset of $185 million corresponding to the company’s accrual balance related to these matters at March 31, 2019, including $35 million related to the Superfund sites.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration